Cruel School?

meritaten

I am sorry but, if the school is putting on the 'entertainment' during school hours, then surely every child should be present and not have to pay? an 'entertainment' which needs to be paid for should be outside school hours shouldnt it?
and if it was part of the school curriculum then it should be free to all the children. sounds to me as if this was outside school curriculum - so it shouldnt have been in school hours.
I think this is disgusting tbh. those poor kids who were excluded have just been taught that money buys you favours. if you havent got any then no-one cares!!!
What a horrible school - I cannot imagine my grandkids school doing that! and if they did - there would be complaints to the governers and LEA!

LilMissEmmylou

Fang you seem very bitter in your posts... page 2 got me so much I just moved to 6 to save me reading you nastyness. You actually refered to kids as scum if they got trips without paying... "the other parents wonder why they should bother paying if the scum get it free?" I am so glad to see you have tarred a 3 year old as scum due to the parents they have.

I on the other hand believe kids are a product of how they are brought up...NOT just by their parents but by society. I would chose to pay a little extra to help those kids see a school play if I had the spare cash and I am by NO MEANS well off. A little bit of human kindness can go a long long way and children who have no choice but the live with the parents they have should not be penalised for their parents decisions!

Fang_3

LilMissEmmylou wrote: »

Fang you seem very bitter in your posts... page 2 got me so much I just moved to 6 to save me reading you nastyness. You actually refered to kids as scum if they got trips without paying... "the other parents wonder why they should bother paying if the scum get it free?" I am so glad to see you have tarred a 3 year old as scum due to the parents they have.

I on the other hand believe kids are a product of how they are brought up...NOT just by their parents but by society. I would chose to pay a little extra to help those kids see a school play if I had the spare cash and I am by NO MEANS well off. A little bit of human kindness can go a long long way and children who have no choice but the live with the parents they have should not be penalised for their parents decisions!

Read again. I didn't label any child scum. Just parents that put drugs before their children's interests.

If you're going to have a go at me then at least have the intelligence to realise that if you do so wrongly, I'll show you up to be stupid.;)

achtunglady

thebaileys wrote: »

I am thinking about complaining, and I will also be bringing up a recent trip in june for some of the year 5 children, where the school charged a 6 pound entry fee to an attraction, when it was actually free for the month of june!

I wonder where this money has gone!

Did they have to pay for the coach or did they walk to the attraction? Could it be that they had to call in extra staff so there was approriate adult to children ratios as dictated by law??

kittiej

Fang you can read your post both ways either the kids or the parents, that was the problem.

What is it with this intelligence hang-up anyway? it seems to be a bit of a theme.

Have you got children Fang? Are you married even?

Just wondered why the relationship section

nottslass_2

Fang wrote: »

Read again. I didn't label any child scum. Just parents that put drugs before their children's interests.

If you're going to have a go at me then at least have the intelligence to realise that if you do so wrongly, I'll show you up to be stupid.;)

Fang, May I suggest you you go back and actually read what you wrote on post 32 ?

You do not at any point refer to "parents that put drugs before their child's interests" in the post,you simply refer to the non paying "scum".

AS you appear to be the one lacking in basic intellect,can I suggest that it would perhaps be a good idea to actually remember what you did post,because failure to do so may result in somebody "showing you up to be stupid";)

PinkLipgloss

I personally find that the type of parents who don't wish to pay for extra events (e.g. a theatre troop we had doing a pantomime performance last Christmas) are the parents that don't bother reading letters or school newsletters.

The pupils were told about the panto in assembly and reminded in class every day to bring in a ticket fee of £1 (the theatre troop were £500 - and they were the cheapest!). The school paid the bulk of the fee. Letters were send home, it was in the school newsletter AND reminder slips were given to children who had not paid a couple of days before.

However, you still find that year in, year out, its the same pupils that don't pay. The children were, however, allowed to see the performance. Lots of teachers were unhappy about this as they think its unfair that the majority of parents pay yet the same ones don't every year and their children are still allowed to see the show.

These same parents are however visibly embarrassed in public in a number of ways e.g. "dress down" days when all the children are playing in the playground in regular clothes and they walk in with their child in uniform, special homework assignment deadline days when every child is standing in the playground with a homemade castle or such like and their child doesn't have one. In these instances, the child kicks off and the parents are forced to deal with it - however they never seem to learn the error of their ways!

mumps

I would hate to see a 3 year old left out. I think schools need to make events inclusive. At my DDs primary school they did a weeks trip in last year, it was over £300 and surprise suprise less than 50% of children went, the year before it was a five day activity trip at about £120 (can't remember exact figure, she is at uni now.) So in just over 12 months we paid out £420 plus spending money.

At the school my sons went to the year five "trip" was a camp out at school. It cost about £3 which was for fish and chips. The kids had a great time, slept in sleeping bags in the main hall, had games and activities organised, they also had the experience of being away from home in a group situation just like a trip to France or wherever. Guess what, all the children attended. In year 6 there was a trip to Butlins for five days, the school did fund raising and the trip was very reasonable and the money raised subsidised all the kids but there might have been extra money available for kids from poorer families but as it was reasonably priced I think most people could afford it(can't remember the exact figure it was a long time ago) In DS1 year all but one child went, she had very protective parents, and DS2 year they all went. Personally I was much happier with this and as a bonus it was cheap for me.

Hope that makes some sense, I am in bed high on painkillers with a broken leg so I am not going anywhere.

onlyroz

PinkLipgloss wrote: »

I personally find that the type of parents who don't wish to pay for extra events (e.g. a theatre troop we had doing a pantomime performance last Christmas) are the parents that don't bother reading letters or school newsletters.

There are times, though, when the school seems to expect me to be psychic - and they also seem to rely too much on the memory of a 5-year-old boy. I recently missed my boy's assembly, because I got the day wrong - the date was advertised in the newsletter about 6 months before the actual day, and I wrote it incorrectly in my calendar - but there was no reminder closer to the event. And last week I got told two days before that my son was going on a trip - I said that it was the first I'd heard about it. "Oh, but we sent out letters weeks ago," I was told.

I do think that shoving letters into a kid's book bag is a hit-and-miss way of deploying information to parents. I've missed things because he was absent on the day that a note was given out - or because his bag was missed out when the letters were put in there in the first place. Not quite sure what the solution to this is - but maybe the letters should be named, and if a child is absent on a particular day then the school will know that the parent did not receive the letter because they'll still have the letter with their name on...

Some would say that I'd learn more if I socialised with the other parents at the school gate - but I don't really have any desire to do this (and why should I?)

vaio

Fang wrote: »

It's very easy to see the logic. As you're having trouble with it, I'll break it down for you.

Firstly - there were subsidized places for staff and no spouses came on the skiing trips that I went on, but in the wider context those teachers and spouses aren't on holiday, they are effectively working 24/7 ensuring that the children are safe and well.

Secondly - those parents who made a loud fuss about refusing to pay are to blame here. No one else. The school was forced into the position to either support the decent parents who pay for their children, or back down to the loudmouth scum who refused. They made the right decision. It is absolutely unfair for the good parents to have to pay for those who refuse to……...

Thanks for explaining that, as I said before I don’t regard skiing as part of the education the school should be providing, add in how unpleasant it must be for the poor teachers and I really can’t see any argument for schools being involved.

If they were stopped then maybe “the best teachers, who go above and beyond what they need to do” could work towards restarting the generally free lunch time & after school clubs which were common when I and my offspring were in school but seem to has disappeared in my grand kids school. All kids could participate rather than just those whose parents are willing and able to stump up three or five hundred quid plus and the bonus for the teachers is they don’t have to work 24/7.

Fang wrote: »

….It's all very well saying that those who want a better education should go with the private sector, but why should they? They pay more tax and therefore pay more towards the state sector and deserve to have their children treated better…….

I repeat, if you want a better education than the child sitting next to you in an inclusive and free at the point of use state school then go into the private sector.

Interesting idea the kids of rich tax paying parents “deserving” better treatment in state schools, maybe we should extend the idea to other basic services like the NHS?

Fang wrote: »

…. You should remember that state education is not free. The rest of us pay for it, so the scum can have access to it. When they refuse to even acknowledge that and don't make the extra effort for their children, then you know that something has gone wrong. But don't try and lay the blame with those that are actively involved with their children's education, lay it where it belongs with the scum that make such a fuss and force the school to act over £5.…….

There’s the “scum” word again, I think it would sound much better if it read “You should remember that state education is not free. Tax payers pay for it according to how rich they are so everyone can use it on an equal basis” as that more accurately reflects the inclusive system I want the state to provide.

It’s a truism that the offspring of parents who get actively involved in their education are going to have a better academic outcome and even more so if the parents are well heeled but it not the job of schools the reinforce these advantages. The schools contribution to the education process should be as linked as possible to the potential of the child rather than the status/wealth of the parents.